Lutherans allow Sexually Active Gay Priests...

Southern Man said:
I gave you a reason grounded in historical fact. Now stop being so hissy.
Click to expand...

You gave me no reason that applies to our modern society. You want to insist that this "historical perspective" gives reasons for todays laws. But that is simply not the case.

There is no reason for gays not to marry, except your own bigotry.




BTW, are you going to answer my other question?

"...or give reason to denigrate marriage further." How, exactly, does gay marriage denigrate marriage at all?
 
WinterBorn said:
You gave me no reason that applies to our modern society. [1]You want to insist that this "historical perspective" gives reasons for todays laws. But that is simply not the case.

There is no reason for gays not to marry, except your own bigotry.




[2]BTW, are you going to answer my other question?

"...or give reason to denigrate marriage further."
How, exactly, does gay marriage denigrate marriage at all?
Click to expand...
1. Proof of this?
2. Gay marriage denigrates traditional marriage because it doesn't provide the same historical benefits to society as previously mentioned.
 
Southern Man said:
1. Proof of this?
2. Gay marriage denigrates traditional marriage because it doesn't provide the same historical benefits to society as previously mentioned.
Click to expand...

1) You want proof that the historical perspective is not a valid reason for todays laws? I have asked repeatedly for any benefit that society gains from straight marriages that it would not also gain from gay marriages. And you have offered nothing.

That in itself is proof.



2) That is total bunk. First of all, nothing that happens in any other marriage can denigrate your marriage. You saying that it denigrates it is just you trying to justify your bigotry.

Secondly, please list any benefits that society receives from straight marriages that it would not receive from gay marriage. I have asked you this before, but now that you have made the claim, I am challenging you to prove it by providing examples.
 
Southern Man said:
Grammatical, and commenting on "elementary school method." LOL
Click to expand...

No, it is a typographical error. My many posts have shown that I know how to use proper english. The error was in tapping a key by accident, not in the intentional misuse of a word.
 
WinterBorn said:
No, it is a typographical error. My many posts have shown that I know how to use proper english. The error was in tapping a key by accident, not in the intentional misuse of a word.
Click to expand...
"Got" didn't show up in your spell-check, so you missed it, and it ended up as a grammatical error. *shrug*
 
Southern Man said:
"Got" didn't show up in your spell-check, so you missed it, and it ended up as a grammatical error. *shrug*
Click to expand...

I don't run a spell check on these forums. That you think you can tell me whether what I typed was a typo or a grammatical error is the height of egotistic nonsense.

Why not stick to the topic?
 
WinterBorn said:
1) You want proof that the historical perspective is not a valid reason for todays laws? I have asked repeatedly for any benefit that society gains from straight marriages that it would not also gain from gay marriages. And you have offered nothing.

That in itself is proof.



2) That is total bunk. First of all, nothing that happens in any other marriage can denigrate your marriage. You saying that it denigrates it is just you trying to justify your bigotry.

Secondly, please list any benefits that society receives from straight marriages that it would not receive from gay marriage. I have asked you this before, but now that you have made the claim, I am challenging you to prove it by providing examples.
Click to expand...

1. "Argumentum ad ignorantiam (argument to ignorance). This is the fallacy of assuming something is true simply because it hasn't been proven false."
2. "Straw man. This is the fallacy of refuting a caricatured or extreme version of somebody's argument, rather than the actual argument they've made. Often this fallacy involves putting words into somebody's mouth by saying they've made arguments they haven't actually made, in which case the straw man argument is a veiled version of argumentum ad logicam."
3. Again, the synergy between a men and women is well documented, and I gave you my opinion why. I suggest that you do a little reading up on it yourself for specific examples. Try Google.
 
Southern Man said:
1. "Argumentum ad ignorantiam (argument to ignorance). This is the fallacy of assuming something is true simply because it hasn't been proven false."
2. "Straw man. This is the fallacy of refuting a caricatured or extreme version of somebody's argument, rather than the actual argument they've made. Often this fallacy involves putting words into somebody's mouth by saying they've made arguments they haven't actually made, in which case the straw man argument is a veiled version of argumentum ad logicam."
3. Again, the synergy between a men and women is well documented, and I gave you my opinion why. I suggest that you do a little reading up on it yourself for specific examples. Try Google.
Click to expand...

Its funny that those Logical Fallacies are expected to carry weight when you quote them, but you ignore them when they are quoted against you.

1) It is not an argument to ignorance. I have requested time and again that you provide definative examples of what benefits society receives from straight marriages that it would not receive from gay marriages. You have not because you cannot. There are no valid differences in the benefits to society.

2) This is absolutely not a strawman argument. It is neither a caricature nor an extreme version of your statement.

You made the claim that it denigrates traditional marriage because it does not provide the same historical benefits to society. I did not make a caricature of that. I simply stated that "nothing that happens in any other marriage can denigrate your marriage". And I stand behind that statement. The post by Damocles concerning this was eloquent and accurate. And I then made a very logical assumption as to why you continue to argue this.


3) The fact that the synergy between men & women is well documented is not the same as the lack of symetry in gay relationships being well documented.

Its funny that, in the same post you make an accusation based on Logical Fallacies, you would commit one of the very ones you complained about.

"Argumentum ad ignorantiam (argument to ignorance). This is the fallacy of assuming something is true simply because it hasn't been proven false."

This fits your claim about the symetry of men & women as well as anything I have said would fit that fallacy.





Please list or describe any benefit that society receives from straight marriages that it would not receive from gay marriages.
 
WinterBorn said:
Its funny that those Logical Fallacies are expected to carry weight when you quote them, but you ignore them when they are quoted against you.

1) It is not an argument to ignorance. I have requested time and again that you provide definative examples of what benefits society receives from straight marriages that it would not receive from gay marriages. You have not because you cannot. There are no valid differences in the benefits to society.

2) This is absolutely not a strawman argument. It is neither a caricature nor an extreme version of your statement.

You made the claim that it denigrates traditional marriage because it does not provide the same historical benefits to society. I did not make a caricature of that. I simply stated that "nothing that happens in any other marriage can denigrate your marriage". And I stand behind that statement. The post by Damocles concerning this was eloquent and accurate. And I then made a very logical assumption as to why you continue to argue this.


3) The fact that the synergy between men & women is well documented is not the same as the lack of symetry in gay relationships being well documented.

Its funny that, in the same post you make an accusation based on Logical Fallacies, you would commit one of the very ones you complained about.

"Argumentum ad ignorantiam (argument to ignorance). This is the fallacy of assuming something is true simply because it hasn't been proven false."

This fits your claim about the symetry of men & women as well as anything I have said would fit that fallacy.





[4]Please list or describe any benefit that society receives from straight marriages that it would not receive from gay marriages.
Click to expand...

1. You stated: "That in itself is proof.", an obvious Argumentum ad ignorantiam.
2. You stated: "nothing that happens in any other marriage can denigrate your marriage" and the issue being discussed is "Gay marriage denigrates traditional marriage because it doesn't provide the same historical benefits to society", an obvious Straw Man.
3. An absurd Straw Man. The issue being discussed is synergy, not "symetry" [sic]. LOL
4. Procreation.
 
Southern Man said:
1. You stated: "That in itself is proof.", an obvious Argumentum ad ignorantiam.
2. You stated: "nothing that happens in any other marriage can denigrate your marriage" and the issue being discussed is "Gay marriage denigrates traditional marriage because it doesn't provide the same historical benefits to society", an obvious Straw Man.
3. An absurd Straw Man. The issue being discussed is synergy, not "symetry" [sic]. LOL
4. Procreation.
Click to expand...

1) In my mind, were there any serious proof you would have posted it. But you haven't.

2) Not a strawman at all. The issue YOU tried to discuss was "Gay marriage denigrates traditional marriage because it doesn't provide the same historical benefits to society". But the issue being discussed is whether or not there are valid reasons for not allowing gays to marry.

And my point that "nothing that happens in any other marriage can denigrate your marriage" is perfectly valid. No other marriage can denigrate your marriage. Only you and your spouse can denigrate your marriage.

3) Your claim that the synergy between men & women is well documented is a great example of "Argumentum ad ignorantiam (argument to ignorance). The fact that the synergy between men & women is well documented means nothing, in and of itself. There is no documentation that the synergy does not exist in a gay relationship. So your argument is moot.

4) Procreation can be accomplished by gay couples. It requires the assistance of a surrogate mother or a sperm donor, but this is not difficult or expensive these days. Also, does this mean that married straight couples who do not have children have no benefit to society?
 
Southern Man said:
Now you're getting hissy. :cof1:
Click to expand...

LOL! Still trying to make it sound as though you are calm while I am throwing a hissy fit? lol

Nothing you have ever said on these forums could prompt me to be angry, upset, or break a sweat.
 
WinterBorn said:
1) In my mind, were there any serious proof you would have posted it. But you haven't.

2) Not a strawman at all. The issue YOU tried to discuss was "Gay marriage denigrates traditional marriage because it doesn't provide the same historical benefits to society". But the issue being discussed is whether or not there are valid reasons for not allowing gays to marry.

And my point that "nothing that happens in any other marriage can denigrate your marriage" is perfectly valid. No other marriage can denigrate your marriage. Only you and your spouse can denigrate your marriage.

3) Your claim that the synergy between men & women is well documented is a great example of "Argumentum ad ignorantiam (argument to ignorance). The fact that the synergy between men & women is well documented means nothing, in and of itself. There is no documentation that the synergy does not exist in a gay relationship. So your argument is moot.

4) Procreation can be accomplished by gay couples. It requires the assistance of a surrogate mother or a sperm donor, but this is not difficult or expensive these days. Also, does this mean that married straight couples who do not have children have no benefit to society?
Click to expand...

1. I don’t have to satisfy your baseless opinion.
2. Actually, the issue is why governments give benefits to traditional married couples, therefore your point is moot.
3. Actually, my reference to documentation is logical, while your lack of documentation is an example of Argumentum ad ignorantiam.
4. Procreation cannot be accomplished by a gay couple themselves, as you just admitted. You asked me to “describe any benefit that society receives from straight marriages”; which I did, your Non Sequitur notwithstanding.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top